Natasha Johnson
Reporter
7:30 Report
ABC TV

Dear Natasha, 

RE Your report: Research suggests biological base for ADHD

We watched with interest this report which was broadcast on the evening of December 3^rd 2007. Unfortunately we felt it made a number of mistakes that are commonly found in reports of 'new' research into the diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

Firstly your report did not mention whether the researchers interviewed had published the results of their study in a peer reviewed journal. The information available on the website of the Academic Child Psychiatry Unit at the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne would suggest that the research project is not yet complete.  Therefore we presume that the researchers have not yet subjected their findings to a process of peer review.  It would have been useful if you had provided this information in your report so that viewers were aware that the research and the results had yet to face the scrutiny of the scientific community. This is especially important given the controversy of the ADHD diagnosis.

Your report also did not disclose any professional affiliations the researchers may have had or the sources of funding for the research. This is important information as it can help the viewer to exclude the possibility of bias when listening to the researchers claims.

More importantly, the report showed no evidence of background research into the many serious criticisms that have been levelled against research claiming a biological basis for 'ADHD' from the medical and human service professions.  A number of peer reviewed journal articles in the medical literature have exposed the fact that claims for a biological basis of ADHD rest on a house of cards. Indeed, all research to date that claims a biological basis for the condition have serious and damning flaws. The main criticisms of the research are that:

1. to date the vast bulk of research has failed to control for the effect of prior exposure to drugs;
2. On the few occasions when researchers have included non-medicated children diagnosed with ADHD in their experiments they have either:
1. failed to compare them to controls appropriately matched for their age,weight and height; or
2. failed to make the comparison at all between the un-medicated 'patient' group and the control group. 

It was impossible to ascertain from your report whether this this 'world first' research had managed to overcome the mistakes of previous studies.  We can only guess that the answer is no - one thing that was  clear from your report is that at least two of the subjects in the research did have significant prior exposure to drugs.  So the question remains - are the differences the researchers claim to have identified a result of prior exposure to drugs, or was the difference there already?

You can find a selection of peer-reviewed journal articles and other literature that outline these problems on the website of the Youth Affairs Network of Queensland at:
http://www.yanq.org.au/content/view/521/71/1/5/. 

As you stated yourself, ADHD is a controversial condition.  It's controversy stems largely from the unfounded claims of dozens of researchers that 'ADHD' has some sort of biological basis.  In future, some simple questions may help to verify the quality of researchers claims before they go to air: 

1. Has the research report provided details of the medication history of its subjects?
2. If yes, do the authors discuss the effects the medication will have on their subjects and the implications for their findings?
3. Has the research compared similar subjects? For example, is the control group of similar age, weight and sex to the experimental group?
4. Have the researchers disclosed any affiliations to companies or organisations that may have an interest in ADHD medication?
5. Have the researchers provided information about the funding body (or bodies) behind the research, and any relevant affiliations these organisations have?

The endless search to find something 'wrong' within children that are different is an expensive and pointless exercise. Besides providing a baseless rationale for the manufacture and sale of expensive drugs to control children and young people, it diverts our attention from finding ways to celebrate all sorts of children - whether they are hyperactive or quiet, inattentive or highly focused. 

Interestingly, your report claimed that children diagnosed with 'ADHD' can function 'normally' except in high stress environments. The accompanying visuals suggested that schools can indeed be high stress environments. Given that billions of dollars and decades have already been spent looking for the elusive biological basis of 'ADHD' we ask if it is time for a change. Perhaps children and young people would be better served if we diverted our time and energy elsewhere. For example, creating low-stress schools and other institutions for children and young people that celebrate their differences and focus on their strengths.  

Yours sincerely

The Youth Affairs Network of Queensland

---

Share this Page!